Brettschneider’s first core value for democracy is
equality of interests. He defines this as: “[equality of interests] requires
that all reasonable citizens be respected as having equal weight. No one person
should have his interests counted more than those of any other person by virtue
of his social position or class.” (23) The part I find most intriguing about
this definition is the second sentence. Thinking about this in the context of
Lebron, this means that I, as a white male, should not have my interests
counted more than a person of color’s interests. Yet, in the United States, Lebron
and Hampton make clear that the color of our skin and the gender into which we
are born bears a lot of light on how we can expect to live our lives. To quote
Lebron, “Merely being born black is a reliable predictor of one’s future life
prospects.” (Lebron 47) The race and gender relationships in our country
clearly are exploitative, to borrow language from Hampton, and do not represent
an equality of interests. So, if the United States government follows
Brettschneider’s Value Theory of Democracy, it has a responsibility to ensure that
each of its citizens enjoys real equality of interests, not just formal. To
give a specific example (I think this one was brought up last class), a black
man driving a Lamborghini shouldn’t have to worry about being pulled over
simply by virtue of being black, while I drive by in mine unnoticed – this would
be a blatant inequality of interests.
This is where I begin to have questions for
Brettschneider. When talking about the issues of epistemic theories, he states
that the government cannot impose a singular ideal, because doing so would
undermine democracy. (19) He writes that this could lead to sectarianism. So it
seems he would oppose Lebron’s shaming process as what he would call a “nondemocratic
procedure-independent standard.” How, then, would he argue for us to rectify
the race (or gender, for that matter) relationship in America? In my mind, he
would clearly support some changes in the system we have, with the goal of
furthering equality of interests, but I think he would also argue that the
government shaming people would be overstepping its bounds and making use of an
epistemic theory of democracy. Am I wrong about this? Is there a way to make
Brettschneider’s argument line up with Lebron’s? What do you guys think?
Henry, I think that the questions that you raise are extremely interesting. Especially when you ask how race (or gender) could be rectified in America. However, I don't think that Brettschneider provides a good mechanism in order to fix the institutional problems that we encounter today. His argument is more focused, like Hampton, on the individual relationships within a society rather than the institutions themselves. I think you are right though when you say that Brettschneider would support changes in the system for the better, but only if they comply with the three core values. And while I do think that Brettschneider could line up with Lebron, I am not sure if shame would be used because the government would have to shame a large population in order to change the perspectives of institutions. I can see that this would be problematic like you point out, especially because the government would be trying change an individual's opinion, which could be an infringement of citizen's rights.
ReplyDeleteI would argue that Bettschneider's problem with Lebron would be focused on his Just Trojan Horse proposal, but I am not as sure for his shaming tactic. His emphasis throughout his argument concerning free speech is that citizens, as both addressees, rulers, and listeners, have a right to access information so as to best make their decisions. He says, "citizens should not be treated as objects impacted by ideas, but rather as thinking subjects entitled to make up their own minds and capable of reasoning about politics" (48) Though he is describing Holmes dissenting opinion in this sentence, this seems to reflect his own views as well. If citizens are assumed to be capable of making up their own minds, it would seem that Bettschneider would find the RARA sufficient to bring the American society into alignment with its values. Once most people were more educated and systematically had access to more information about the reality of racial equality, perhaps we would not need the regulation of things like disproportionate representation of crime on the news, because people would realize that this is not in alignment with our values. As such, a more natural shift might occur as the public started to naturally reject those kinds of programs.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I think that Brettschneider's idea contained in his epistemic theories and the singular ideal is similar to Hampton's argument against the feminist argument against Rawls. The government cannot enact a singular ideal because how are we to evaluate that one is the correct singular ideal? However, I am not sure if Lebron's justification for shaming methods (besides the Trojan Horse) are the types of singluar ideals that Brettschneider is referring to here. Because the ideals that we are violating, rightly pointed out by Lebron, are the ideals of the core values of democracy-- equality of interests and reciprocity specifically. If anything, these are the only ideals that both Brettschneider and Lebron are arguing are already widely accepted. Thus, perhaps the shaming would not be the government imposing an ideal, just reinforcing one the public already holds to be true.